I don't concern myself with what such people do up until they start voting for politicians that want to raise taxes on everyone else to subsidize their lifestyle.
It's the same with personal health choices. You don't just die in a vacuum when your health decisions come home to roost. Rather, you take from finite, shared medical resources. For that reason, "my body, my choices" isn't as bulletproof as it seems at first glance.
I'm reminded of all the people who weren't allowed back into evacuation zones during the latest surge of forest fires to save more belongings from their house. People invoke the reasonable point of "I should be able to make that gamble if I want" but in reality, if they were to find themselves in danger, they'd be squandering resources of emergency responders having to save them and the attention of other people who should be working on evacuating swiftly rather than saving their neighbor.
It's not always obvious where to draw the line when concerning ourselves with the actions of others.
Money as it currently exists isn't personal property, it's an instrument for managing debt incurred by economic activity. Higher taxes on you are just society shifting their priorities away from your interests. Sucks for you, but then, it could just be the rebound from society over-subsidizing your lifestyle.
> Higher taxes on you are just society shifting their priorities away from your interests
We shouldn't be prioritizing anyone's interests via an institution with the right to licit first use of force. We have the technology now to charge people directly for the government-provided services they use. If you use it, you should pay for it. Until we start doing this, society is never going to price things properly and prices are the fastest mechanism for a society to communicate what is important.
Unilaterally taking away IOUs someone has accumulated without recompense merely deprioritizing someone's interests. It's theft.
> it could just be the rebound from society over-subsidizing your lifestyle.
what aspects of my lifestyle do you believe society over-subsidizing?
>We shouldn't be prioritizing anyone's interests via an institution with the right to licit first use of force.
Right. We should leave it to individuals with power and influence accrued during the current era, where we... prioritized some people's interests via an institution with the right to licit first use of force. Usually based on heritage.
This is definitely a good idea that you have had.
>what aspects of my lifestyle do you believe society over-subsidizing?
Depends on what your decadent western trade and hobbies are.
